What should we do about Quinn and Rauner?

John Dillon, Fred Klonsky, Ken Previti and I are retired teachers, activists, advocates for pension justice and bloggers. Today we discuss the issue of what current and retired public employees might consider regarding the Illinois election for governor. This commentary is cross-posted on all four blogs:

Voting for Quinn in November: Seeking HazMat Suit on EBay

There is the old cliché that voting in American politics often requires a person to hold his or her nose and pull the lever. Not so this year; at least, not so on the Illinois gubernatorial level. In the case of people like me – public sector workers both current and retired – we have a couple of real stinkers to choose from.

I should remind myself that there are indeed other candidates, like the Green Party candidate Scott Summers or the Libertarian candidate Chad Grimm. But voting for those unlikely characters is an act of defiance akin to holding your breath when you were five years old to prove that no one could make you go to bed. Nice gesture, but even if you won, you put yourself to sleep. Nothing changes in politics without a plan that moves beyond the moment.

Me? I’m looking for a Haz Mat suit this year. Pulling the lever for Quinn is the most unseemly and antithetical action I can contemplate given his various affronts these last few years, from the ridiculous (Squeezy) to the delusional (“I was put on this earth…”) to the unconstitutional (signing SB1).

Whoa! Almost talked myself out of it.

On the other hand, it doesn’t take much time to read over Bruce Rauner’s home website proposals for correcting Illinois’ woes to see that (1) he has no idea what he’s doing, (2) he’s only trying to copy major ALEC ideas put into play by real (Koch-purchased) politicians with experience in right to work states like MI or IN, and (3) he couldn’t begin to do much more in Illinois then as he most accurately promised: “Really, I’m gonna drive ‘em all nuts.”

In short, he is an expert on nuts, guys. And we’d be nuts not to vote against him by choosing the danger we already know – Pat Quinn.

I could decide not to vote at all, but like the silly act of defiance such inaction might be a mistake. Reason? Quinn won last time by only 32,000 votes. Those were likely public sector workers and others. If we want Quinn to beat Rauner, we’ll need to vote for him as public sector workers.

And Rauner will do anything using others to prove he is not who or what he really is. Lula, the commercialized African-American “educator” is an attempt to blunt the outrage of most of us who are quite aware of his positions on nixing the minimum wage, pushing charter schools for the wealthy, or destroying pensions for small savings accounts called 401K’s.

And I could decide that I won’t do what the unions will ask me to do – yield and vote for Quinn despite his SB1 and all his blustering on fixing the pensions on the backs of retirees and now the poor current workers. Did I mention the future hirers? Yeah, I’m sorry they didn’t anticipate this dilemma too, but they’ll need to make a choice and ask us to do what’s ugly but necessary.

It’s a Hobson’s choice, guys, but that’s not to say both candidates are equivalently dangerous to the middle class. One is a bumbling populist while the other has, as WS once pointed out, “a lean and hungry look,” the kind who looks quite through the deeds of “real workers.”

Hey! Got one!

Regards,

John      

                                                                       *****

Dear John, Glen and Ken,

Thanks for kicking this off John. It’s a great exercise in debate and collaboration. As four retired teachers, we are modeling what we hope for our union: open debate and inclusion.

What is clear to me is that the election for Illinois Governor is going to be close. Recent polls show only a few points separate them.

Quinn’s problem is that because he and his Democratic Party comrades in Springfield led the assault on public employee pensions, many of us will not vote for him. At least, not at the moment. I talked to many IEA members after their face-to-face at the IEA RA. They hated Rauner, but told me that as of now they would not vote for Quinn. I expect that will change for many by November. But Quinn needs all of his Democratic base. Not some of it. A few thousand stay-at-homes or Green Party voters and his goose is cooked.

As for me, I have not decided yet if I will vote for Quinn.

What are the Democrats offering unions and public employees in exchange for our vote?

Incredibly, they are planning more pension thievery even as we write this. This time they have voted to cut the pensions of City workers. Chicago police, fire fighters and teachers are next on the agenda.

If Quinn wants my vote, he should veto the current bill and swear off any further pension cuts.

He should make a public pronouncement that he was put on this earth to raise revenue. To tax the rich. To end cuts to the programs that serve the most needy.

The more serious problem is that our union leadership and the leadership of the other unions in the coalition have done nothing over the years to create a working families’ electoral alternative.

They spent over four million dollars on a campaign to elect the Chairman of ALEC in the Republican primary and came within three percentage points of doing that.

Imagine what could have been built with that money in terms of a pro-working family’s electoral alternative.

- Fred

                                                                       *****

Dear John, Fred and Glen,

The problem of voting for governor in the next election is not merely Quinn (D) versus Rauner (R) in Illinois.

Teachers in IL, CT, FL, PA, etc. face the identical “lesser of two evils” ploy in future elections for governor. They are told that each state faces unique sets of issues, but that is a lie.

See HERE#1 and HERE#2 and HERE#3 and HERE#4 and HERE#5.

Teachers, pro-public-education parents, CCSS dissenters, high stakes testing opponents, pro-education-for-all supporters, and all active and retired public employees face the abuses presented by the corporate controlled two political party system that monetizes children for private profit while starving seniors by diminishing their pensions. Stop accepting the lies and abuses we are all being subjected to.

Harsh Fact of Life: There is no valid gubernatorial candidate from either major political party to choose between in many states.

Harsh Conclusion: Our votes have already been wasted – wasted as in killed, exterminated, made dead. The politicos during the manipulated primary selection processes saw to that. Past politicos have created barriers for third-party candidates. Major corporate media has also marginalized or ignored candidates other than (D) or (R). The Supreme Court has declared that money is free speech and approved bribery and the purchase of candidates by the wealthy. Unions have failed to create, select or support pro-union candidates at an early enough time when the money and support would have mattered.

Who do we vote for in November? For governor, leave it blank.

Vote for anyone of your choice for other elected office, but leave the governor’s choices blank. Yes, this sends a message. No, it is not wasted; it shows the numbers of people who see through the “lesser of two evils” ploy being played by Democrat and Republican Party leadership across the nation.

These party leaders need to count how many votes they themselves have wasted. They need to see that the old game is breaking apart as they lose in areas that they believed were safe.

Yes, this is a form of non-violent revolt. Vote, but don’t vote for any “lesser of two evils” gubernatorial candidates. If any state, such as Connecticut, has a chance for a third-party candidate, vote for the person in order to give the two-party game players a lesson in what politics could and should be.

If there are no valid candidates, revolt; leave blanks.

I will not wear a Haz-Mat suit. I will wear Gandhi eyeglasses.

- Ken

                                                                      *****

Dear John, Fred and Ken

Two equally objectionable choices could have been avoided. To choose between the lesser of two evils with the added hope that a repentant politician emerges to “swear off any further pension cuts…” is perhaps fanciful thinking.

However, “the failure of the union leadership to create an electoral alternative (that wasn’t based on electing the Chairman of ALEC as the Republican nominee) has led to this: an unholy alliance with the worst of the Democrats” (Klonsky’s …Will Rauner fear push our union leaders into the arms of Michael Madigan? May 4th). This is our profane reality now.

As to voting for either duplicitous, constitutional contract-breaker Quinn or negligent, ($53 million+ a year) venture capitalist Rauner:

For anyone who is a current or retired public employee, let your Conscience be your guide.

- glen

State pension fight heads to Supreme Court in New Hampshire by Elizabeth Dinan

[Of Special Note: New Hampshire's legal basis for protection of past and present public pension rights (or accruals) is through contract. In Illinois, the guarantee is stated explicitly in its State Constitution].

“Higher employee contributions are unconstitutional, according to unions:

“Four public employees’ unions are taking the state to the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of 2011 increases to the amounts they pay toward their pensions, as well as refunds for increased pension payments they made during the last three years.

“The Supreme Court decision could mean a loss of $25 million to $50 million a year in employee pension contributions, and refunds of $75 million to $150 million, according to Marty Karlon, spokesman for the New Hampshire Retirement System.

“The unions seeking to overturn that so-called pension reform are members of the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Police Association, the National Education Association and State Employees Association of New Hampshire. They are represented by attorney Andru Volinsky, who successfully secured cash refunds for municipalities that overpaid for health and liability insurance through the municipal insurer formerly known as the Local Government Center.

“Volinsky said the 2011 increases to employees' pension contributions that were mandated by the Legislature are unconstitutional under ‘contract clause,’ because they were imposed upon employees ‘already in the system.’ Those employees made contractual agreements with their public employers to pay a specific portion of their earnings toward their pensions and those agreements cannot be changed during their careers, he said…

“‘Changing employment terms, after both sides agreed to them, said Volinsky, is like telling a plow driver he'll be paid $50 an hour to clear roads, then telling him in the middle of a snowstorm he'll be paid less.’

“Representing the state, Associate Attorney General Richard Head cites case law saying that a law such as the one that increased the employees' pension contributions ‘is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights, but merely declares a policy to be pursued until the Legislature shall ordain otherwise.’

“Head said he expects the Supreme Court will be interested in hearing debate about when employee contracts became effective — in other words, when employees are ‘vested.’ The state argues employees are vested when they retire, the Merrimack Superior Court has ruled employees are vested after 10 years, while public employees argue they're vested when they're hired, or after a probationary period of typically a year.

“The legal debate…

“The 2011 legislation in dispute increased pension contribution rates for teachers from 5 percent to 7 percent of their wages. Teachers are also eligible to collect Social Security benefits. Police officers' contributions increased from 9.3 percent of their earnings to 11.5 percent. Firefighters' pension contributions were increased from 9.3 percent to 11.8 percent.

“All public employees have been paying these increased pension contributions since the law took effect July 1, 2011, according to the state.

“Volinsky said public employees took their jobs knowing they're paid less than their private counterparts and the lower pay was offset with ‘richer’ pensions. ‘Part of the deal is a dependable pension,’ he said. ‘Then, all of a sudden, the 2011 Legislature says, you know that pension we promised you? You can't rely on that.' And if that's true, he argues, ‘What's to prevent increases of 50 percent or 80 percent? The state is held to its contracts.’

“Changing the terms, Volinsky said, is unconstitutional.

“Head argues that many public employees took their jobs because there's nothing comparable in the private sector and he doubts the Supreme Court will be interested in that debate. The associate attorney general said employees' pension contributions are comparable to their health insurance contributions that are also a benefit with no guarantee that employees ‘will never pay a dime more.’ There's nothing in the law saying that once the pension contribution is set at 5 percent, it can never be raised or lowered, he said.

“According to Head, state law does not use ‘unmistakable language,’ as required, to guarantee set pension contribution rates. Volinsky counters that, ‘If they can change this, they can change the amount of the payout and the number of years’ an employee has to work before being eligible to start drawing a pension. ‘How is that fair?’ he asked.

“Head said the law does state that employee pension contributions cannot exceed contributions made by their municipal employers. In other words, the most public employees could be mandated to contribute would be 50 percent of his or her pay. The state also argues that language in pension law allows future legislatures to evaluate pension contributions and adjust them up or down.

“In his brief to the Supreme Court, Volinsky outlines the history of how the state pension system became underfunded, including the state's ‘raiding’ of the fund and its history of failing to fully contribute to it. He also reminds that the state recently ceased paying a portion of the pension contributions.

“Now, he said, the state wants public workers to make up the difference, when it's new employees and municipalities that should fill the funding gap.

“Volinsky said the only changes that can be made to employee contracts are through quid pro quo, when they receive something in exchange. ‘They were induced to work for the government’ with specific pension promises, he said.

“Head argues that, like health insurance, as pension plans are adjusted, employee contributions are legally allowed to be adjusted accordingly. ‘We say there's nothing special in the retirement package that says nothing will ever change,’ he said.

“According to Head, the New Hampshire Municipal Association, the Association of Counties and the School Board Association have filed briefs in support of the state's position.

“Multimillion-dollar impact:

“If the Supreme Court affirms a Superior Court decision that says vesting occurs for employees after 10 years, Karlon said, ‘future contributions for those members who had 10 years of service would be adjusted to the contribution rates that were in place prior to July 1, 2011. This would result in a decrease of about $25 million in contributions annually to the system.’  If refunds to those employees are ordered, ‘there would be about 25,000 affected individuals and $75 million in refunds,’ Karlon said.

“If the Supreme Court rules all full-time employees are to be considered vested, that would result in a decrease of about $50 million in annual member contributions to the pension fund, according to Karlon. If refunds are ordered under that scenario, ‘there would be about 49,000 affected individuals and $150 million in refunds to be made by or through employers,’ according to the NHRS. In either case, he said, ‘this means that employer contribution rates would have to increase to offset the loss of revenue to the system.’

“The New Hampshire Retirement System is ‘discussing scenarios for several possible outcomes,’ he said. ‘Any outcome that includes changes to member contribution rates or individual member accounts will require significant modifications to the pension database.’

“Volinsky said, ‘Overpayments should be refunded, yes. The retirement system should not be allowed to keep that if it's unconstitutional. That part is easy.’ Volinsky wrote to the Supreme Court that the NHRS ‘paints a drastic picture that mass logistical calamity will erupt should (the unions) succeed and seek an equitable refund of their excess contributions.’ If the unions win, he wrote to the court, they will ‘work cooperatively’ with the NHRS ‘to determine an appropriate, efficient and practical manner in which to credit (union members) for their excess contributions. Thus, Volinsky tells the Supreme Court, ‘the court should not be tempted by the NHRS's doom and gloom contentions.’

“Oral arguments from both sides are scheduled to be presented to the Supreme Court on May 15.”

from State pension fight heads to Supreme Court by Elizabeth Dinan